Recommended Posts

The nanny state argument always comes up with these sorts of discussions. The fact is it shows a lot of ignorance on the part of those people arguing that point. Yes, ideally people should be able to make their own choices with no interference, but you simply can't rely on people to make the right choice, and that has a big cost on the community. Go into any emergency department on a Friday night and you'll see the blatant waste of resources going to treating people who simply can't make the right choice or know when to stop. At least 30% of the ED resources, if not more, are going into treating drunk and drug affected people on those nights. That's an enormous waste, yet never are the people who waste these resources held to account. Unfortunately, legislation is the only way that seems to be able to control this even to a small extent. Perhaps if the people doing stupid things had to pay their own bills maybe there'd be a change of attitude. But I'd doubt it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nanny state argument always comes up with these sorts of discussions. The fact is it shows a lot of ignorance on the part of those people arguing that point. Yes, ideally people should be able to make their own choices with no interference, but you simply can't rely on people to make the right choice, and that has a big cost on the community. Go into any emergency department on a Friday night and you'll see the blatant waste of resources going to treating people who simply can't make the right choice or know when to stop. At least 30% of the ED resources, if not more, are going into treating drunk and drug affected people on those nights. That's an enormous waste, yet never are the people who waste these resources held to account. Unfortunately, legislation is the only way that seems to be able to control this even to a small extent. Perhaps if the people doing stupid things had to pay their own bills maybe there'd be a change of attitude. But I'd doubt it!

Agree with this too :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

macman that is my opinion (perhaps not yours) and no need to say sorry

"The Nanny State is not just there to protect individuals from bad choices, it is also there to protect the rest of us from the consequences of those bad choices."

In case you had not noticed, the education and change management tools the govt has employed for many years has not significantly reduced the deaths. It is probably now time to use enforcement strategies.

It can't hurt can it? The only thing it hurts is some people's egos.

Really, this is about egos? I think that is a pretty poorly thought out statement from someone that is a senior and respected member of this site.

Answer this question for me. If lifejackets were made compulsory, should I be expected to wear a lifejacket while fishing the south breakwall at Yamba?

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, this is about egos? I think that is a pretty poorly thought out statement from someone that is a senior and respected member of this site.

Answer this question for me. If lifejackets were made compulsory, should I be expected to wear a lifejacket while fishing the south breakwall at Yamba?

Matt

macmac thanks for referring to me as a "senior and respected member of this site"

I am in fact the owner of this site and you are here because I allow you to be here.

If you don't like it then you know where the door is. :boot:

Are you Johnny Weissmuller?? Give me one good reason why a person would NOT wear a lifejacket that may save their lives?

Back to the original request - please take the time to complete the survey. No more personal attacks please :pokey:

As you were boys ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65,184
    • Total Posts
      523,122